A friend recently completed a firearms application in order to purchase a hunting rifle and asked me the question, “what does domestic violence have to do with firearms ownership?”

Currently on a firearms application you have to answer that you have not been found guilty of ‘domestic violence’ or are not subject to a restraining order related to domestic violence. I have not seen the application myself for a while, but it is something to that effect. That question hasn’t always been on the application. So, as my friend asks, what does domestic violence have to do with firearms ownership?

It’s a question I’ve been pondering for some time. I’ve been asking myself that question because I believe the question discriminates against the male in society. It’s not OK to discriminate against the female, or any racial group, which is understandable, but for some reason, perhaps it is media driven, discrimination against the male is not really considered a social transgression of any significance in our society.

First of all, at one time the thresholds preventing ownership of a firearm were any of the following, a felonious record, dishonorable discharge from the military (another question that I believe at one time at least discriminated against the male primarily because the military was almost all male), drug use is another, and mental condition. Then came a new type of crime, branded “Domestic Violence,” as society attempted to curb violence between partners (could be read “boyfriend and girlfriend”) and family members, of which most domestic violence charges are misdemeanors and NOT felonious crimes.

Now you might say, well what does it matter if they are felonious or not, often the crimes are somewhat and/or often violent, such as fighting between spouses, and indicate even only the potential (and that is why the question is on the application) for violent behavior in the future against a family member or member of the opposite sex, for example? Often, the law comes into play merely as the result of a threat during a heated argument between boyfriend and girlfriend, no less! You might think that is a worthy reason for the question to be on the firearms application. And at first, I myself reached the same conclusion.

But then something occurred to me about the purchase of firearms that indicated that the “Domestic Violence” question on a firearms application discriminates against the male in our society. Simply put, the question discriminates against the male in our society because males, to a much larger extent, purchase firearms in substantially greater numbers than females purchase firearms and so the question has a directly discriminatory effect on the behavior of males while not so of females. Therefore, the question on the application is discriminatory by numerical definition.

There is not much else to it really. The question and the law from which it originates substantially discriminates against the male in our society. Therefore, the question should be removed from the application. Any law that discriminates against a category of society disproportionately, in this case against an entire sex, is by definition discriminatory.

I would add that the domestic violence question bypasses any constitutional muster since again often the domestic violence laws involve misdemeanor crimes, not felonies.

So, to answer my question in the title of this observation, “Yes, I believe domestic violence laws discriminate against men.”

I would also add that though the question on firearms applications regarding domestic violence was meant to curb or reduce domestic violence in America, it has done little as there has been a substantial increase in domestic violence incidents (ask any police officer) for the last thirty years and it doesn’t seem to be slowing any (also an indication that the control of the household is constantly being relinquished to the state, perhaps primarily through the implementation of domestic violence laws). So that question and the related law has had little or no effect. Not only is the “domestic violence” question on firearms applications discriminatory, it does not work.

That’s just my take on it. If you disagree, let me know by commenting. I’d like to hear what you have to say.

I was watching some file footage of political behavior in a number of Asian countries, all of which have vibrant economies. It was on some show on cable.

One of the things I noticed was that there was a long series of footage from within the very chambers the elected in those Asian countries governed and in those very chambers things often broke out into actual knock-down, drag-out fistfights. They were really scrappy fights. Fists were flying! The politicians were connecting some pretty serious blows, latching on to each others’ clothing, dragging sometimes two or three people to the floor, pummeling and kicking them. The collection of file footage was meant to be humorous, but a thought occurred to me while I was watching it.

They don’t do that here in The United States. Why, I asked myself?

Is it because we are more civilized? Doubtful. They have very low violent crime in those countries.

No, my conclusion is that they care more about their jobs in those Asian countries and their constituency and their political situation is more viable!

For a country so thoroughly divided as ours, with elections often running right down the very middle, neck and neck, you’d think people would have a little more trouble getting along, if you know what I mean. But things seem to be going swimmingly amongst our elected at almost all times when you watch Washington, for example, on the flat screen these days.

Me thinks that kind of tells you something, ahem.

They only appear not to agree on things, if you know what I mean. But that’s about that…and things generally don’t improve, just more taxes, more laws, less freedoms, more intrusion, more surveillance, less safety, more fear, much more fear.

Recently I blogged that I believe the greater cost of government lies in the way governments redistribute our taxes to others. I titled the essay just that, THE GREATER COST OF GOVERNMENT. I just finished reading a book by James Wesley Rawles titled FOUNDERS. The book, a novel, is about a potential economic collapse and the resultant condition of the country. Things are bleak. In the book Rawles quotes Dr. Walter E. Williams in his essay “Bogus Rights,” from Townhall, February 8, 2006.

Dr. Walter E. Williams states, “Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we’d call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that’s exactly what thieves do–redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders’ vision, it’s a sin in the eyes of God.” Dr. Walter E. Williams.

Now, I don’t know about the “…sin in the eyes of God…” part, there are some clergy that have commented on this blog in the past and they may wish to expand through biblical references for our benefit.

I do know that the redistribution of wealth is the primary function of government today and that redistribution of wealth seems to be focused on taking money from the middle classes and working classes primarily and giving it to the very poor, those who refuse to work, or the tax clever citizen who knows how to wrangle money from the government.

But the redistribution of wealth is the greater cost of government and Dr. Walter E. Williams observations are well received here.

In my opinion, when one examines the various costs of government, the one which stands out as the most expensive is that portion of the government involved in the re-distribution of wealth.

In other words when you see your tax dollars being spent to pay for the maintenance of roads or to cover the cost of policing, to improve the nation’s defense, to pay for public education, whatever, you see something tangible, something that you know is improving the condition of the country. Your tax dollars go directly to the purpose for which they were levied and the results are obvious and beneficial.

But when your tax dollars are merely given to someone else to pay for say the cost of having a child out-of-wedlock, for example, and raising that child or to pay for some other “social” expense which is the result of illicit behavior perhaps, you see very…